On 2009/02/05 11:30, Aaron W. Hsu wrote: > Hello everyone, > > On 05-Feb-2009 Hannah Schroeter wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 02:34:47PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >>On 2009/02/05 14:06, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > >>> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:37:35AM -0700, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >>> >CVSROOT: /cvs > >>> >Module name: www > >>> >Changes by: [email protected] 2009/02/05 04:37:35 > > > >>> >Modified files: > >>> > faq : faq8.html > > > >>> >Log message: > >>> >"why does...run on Solaris" -> "why did...used to run on Solaris" in the > >>> >section index, as was already done in the section header and index.html. > > > >>> Shouldn't it be "did ... use" without double use of past tense? > >>> See e.g. the example in http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use[2] > >>> "intransitive verb 1 [...] <didn't use to smoke>". > > > >>The "didn't use to smoke" example they give doesn't seem correct > >>to me (as a native UK english speaker). > > > > Ok, I'm not a native speaker, but then, I've seen native speakers write > > things that *are* definitely not correct (e.g. "it's" for "of it" > > instead of "its", one of my pet peeves). > > > > For other verbs, double past tense is definitely wrong. One doesn't say > > "didn't went", but "didn't go", for example. So "didn't used" (or "did > > used" in cases where one splits past tenses without negation) sounds > > wrong to me, and m-w reinforces my feeling. > > > > Another online dictionary supports my view, too: > > http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=87518&dict=CALD > > "use to In negative sentences and questions, 'use to' replaces 'used to' > > when it follows 'did' or 'didn't'" > > > > Double past form is referred to as "non-standard": > > "NOT STANDARD He did used to work there, didn't he?" > > In this particular case, I say that the use of 'use' in any form is > simply redundant and bothersomely cumbersome. We already have a past > tense 'did' here, so why not just say: > > Why did www.openbsd.org run on Solaris? > > I think this is cleaner, snappier, and better overall.
Or we could just remove that section, if people want historical details they can look at CVS...
